Understanding the Search for Meaning in Life:
Personality, Cognitive Style, and the Dynamic
Between Seeking and Experiencing Meaning
Michael F. Steger,1 Todd B. Kashdan,2
Brandon A. Sullivan,3 and Danielle Lorentz3
1
2
University of Louisville
George Mason University
3
University of Minnesota
ABSTRACT Although several theories assert that understanding the
search for meaning in life is important, empirical research on this construct is sparse. Three studies provide the first extensive effort to understand the correlates of the search for meaning in a multistudy research
program. Assessed were relations between search for meaning and wellbeing, cognitive style, and the Big Five, Big Three, Approach/Avoidance,
and Interest models of personality, with a particular emphasis on understanding the correlates of search for meaning that are independent of
presence of meaning. Conceptual models of the relation between search
and presence were tested. Findings suggest that people lacking meaning
search for it; the search for meaning did not appear to lead to its presence.
Study 3 found that basic motive dispositions moderated relations between
search for meaning and its presence. Results highlight the importance of
basic personality dispositions in understanding the search for meaning
and its correlates.
Several investigations have recently reaffirmed the link between
meaning in life and well-being (e.g., King, Hicks, Krull, & DelGaiso, 2006; Mascaro & Rosen, 2005; Reker, 2005; Steger & Frazier,
Our gratitude to Kirsten Sundell for her comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael F. Steger,
Educational & Counseling Psychology, College of Education and Human Development,
Room 308, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292. E-mail: michael_f_steger@
yahoo.com.
Journal of Personality 76:2, April 2008
r 2008, Copyright the Authors
Journal compilation r 2008, Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00484.x
200
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
2005; Steger, Frazier, Oishi, & Kaler, 2006; Urry et al., 2004).
Despite this revitalization of meaning-related research, attention
has narrowly focused on the presence of meaning relative to other
important aspects of this larger construct. Given that the relevant
examination of such variables can be traced back to Viktor Frankl’s
(1963) landmark work, Man’s Search for Meaning, it is perhaps most
surprising that the past 40 years of research has almost completely
neglected search for meaning as an empirical construct. In the subsequent introductory sections, we describe the theoretical underpinnings of the present research. We discuss the first purpose of this
investigation, which involved identifying the unique dispositional correlates of search for meaning, including correlates related to cognitive
styles and trait variables. We then discuss the second purpose of this
investigation, which involved clarifying potential dynamic relations
between search for meaning and presence of meaning. Finally, we
present three correlational studies focusing on these aims.
Meaning in Life
Human beings have a strong desire to understand themselves and the
world around them, exhibiting cognitive and behavioral activity in
support of such desires (e.g., Epstein, 1985; Heine, Proulx, & Vohs,
2006; Higgins, 2000; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Ryff & Singer, 1998).
People theoretically experience the presence of meaning when
they comprehend themselves and the world, understand their unique
fit in the world, and identify what they are trying to accomplish in
their lives (Steger, in press). Thus, people are thought to be motivated both to have and search for meaning in life. However, people
vary in the degree to which they actively search for meaning. We
define the search for meaning in life as the strength, intensity, and
activity of people’s desire and efforts to establish and/or augment
their understanding of the meaning, significance, and purpose of
their lives.
In some theories, the search for meaning is seen to be a positive
sign of mental health; in other theories, quite the opposite perspective is proposed. Frankl (1963; see also Maddi, 1970) wrote that
searching for meaning is ‘‘the primary motivational force in man
[sic]’’ (p. 121). As such, the search for meaning should be a natural,
healthy part of life, spurring people to seek out new opportunities
and challenges, and fueling their desire to understand and organize
Search for Meaning in Life
201
their experiences. In contrast, other accounts regard search for
meaning as symptomatic of dysfunction. For example, Baumeister
(1991) and Klinger (1998) have suggested that the search for meaning only occurs among individuals whose needs have been frustrated.
A third perspective recognizes both possibilities—that search for
meaning has both healthy (i.e., life-affirming) and unhealthy (i.e.,
deficit-based) motivational roots (Reker, 2000). Finally, we propose
a previously unexplored possibility that search for meaning might
arise from different underlying motivations in different people and
thus have different correlations depending on those motivations.
Is the Search for Meaning in Life Distinct From Other Constructs?
Although the search for meaning commonly has been regarded as
simply the absence of meaning (cf. Klinger, 1998), factor-analytic
and multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) evidence indicates
they should be differentiated (Reker & Cousins, 1979; Steger et al.,
2006). Beyond this differentiation, the psychological features specific
to search for meaning have not been articulated. In the present investigation, we targeted well-being, cognitive style, and personality.
Although one MTMM study has established the discriminant validity of the search for meaning from self-esteem, optimism, and life
satisfaction (Steger et al., 2006), deficits in other psychological
strengths could account for search for meaning. For example, search
for meaning might be subsidiary to one’s perceived inability to
achieve personal growth, exert control over one’s environment, or
develop firmly held beliefs and self-acceptance.
Just as deficits in well-being might stimulate search for meaning,
search for meaning might originate in people’s cognitive styles. For
example, the urge to understand and organize information about the
world (Klinger, 1998; Maddi, 1998) may arise from preferences for
the intellectual challenges inherent in ‘‘big questions’’ (i.e., need for
cognition; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Alternatively, people who characteristically question everything (i.e., low in dogmatism [Altemeyer,
2002] or right-wing authoritarianism [Altemeyer, 1988]) might simply
question the meaning of their lives along with everything else.
Similarly, search for meaning might reflect the tendency to seek
out novelty (i.e., curiosity; Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004). The
search for meaning might exemplify the pursuit of future goals (e.g.,
future time perspective, Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), or, conversely, an
202
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
inability to let go of painful past experiences (Nolen-Hoeksema,
McBride, & Larson, 1997; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).
Existing conceptualizations of search for meaning also evoke distinct personality traits. Principally, people searching for meaning may
question their values and ideas about life, similar to the Big Five trait
Openness to Experience. Previous research using a brief omnibus
measure has not indicated a significant relation with Openness (Steger
et al., 2006). However, search for meaning may be more related to
some facets (e.g., ideas) of the broader Openness trait than others
(e.g., fantasy). The Big Three trait, Constraint—referring to tendencies to suppress impulses and risk taking (Tellegen, 1982)—appears
antithetical to search for meaning. Of particular relevance to search
for meaning may be Holland’s (1985) circumplex model of interests—
those things to which people are typically drawn. We might expect
searchers to be drawn to many things and have high levels of interests.
The Relation Between the Search for Meaning and the Presence
of Meaning
The search for meaning must be understood in relation to the
presence of meaning. Given the absence of systematic research,
the second purpose of this investigation was to articulate and evaluate two competing conceptual models of the relation between
search and presence.
Presence-to-Search Model
The first model of this relation posits that meaning in life is a highly
desired psychological quality; when people feel their lives have little
meaning, or when they lose meaning, they will search for it. The
predicted inverse relation has emerged in empirical work (Steger et
al., 2006). The small to medium size of this effect suggests a more
complex model, however. Other psychological strengths are relevant
to meaning, and people may search for meaning when lacking these
strengths (Baumeister, 1991). In addition, presence of meaning is just
one component of overall well-being (e.g., Ryff & Singer, 1998), and
strengths in other areas might offset deficits in meaning. We propose
a model in which the relation between presence and search is affected
by other strengths and vulnerabilities. Generally, people who
possess psychological strengths (e.g., autonomy) will be more likely
Search for Meaning in Life
203
to experience presence of meaning. Among such people, deficits in
meaning might not spark a strong search for meaning because other
qualities of life are satisfying. Among people lacking strengths or
possessing vulnerabilities (e.g., ruminative tendencies), deficits in
meaning might spark a stronger search for meaning.
Search-to-Presence Model
The second model posits that seeking meaning leads to experiencing
greater meaning (e.g., Frankl, 1963). As such, search for meaning
should be positively related to presence of meaning, typically inversely related. However, the likelihood that searching for meaning
yields greater meaning may differ as a function of dispositional motivations. A healthy search is usually depicted as grounded in people’s aspirations and insights they derive from engaging life’s
challenges (e.g., Maddi, 1970). In contrast, a dysfunctional search
is usually said to be marked by people’s inability to engage with and
resolve negative or challenging experiences (e.g., Klinger, 1998). As
such, basic tendencies either to seek out positive experiences or to
seek to avoid negative experiences may influence the outcome of
searching for meaning. This distinction maps onto basic approach
(seeking positives) and avoidance (shunning negatives) motivational
orientations (e.g., Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000; Elliot & Thrash,
2002). Searching for meaning among more approach-oriented people
may be positively related to presence of meaning; searching for
meaning among more avoidance-oriented people may be negatively
related to presence of meaning.
Although correlational studies such as the present ones cannot
establish causality, they can help sustain or refute theory-driven
causal models. For example, searching for meaning theoretically
leads to greater meaning rather than lesser meaning. Existing correlational findings, therefore, support the competing model that reverses the causal path—that lesser presence of meaning leads to
greater search for meaning (presence-to-search model). If the relation between search and presence is positive among people reporting
more Openness or Approach Orientation, this would support the
search-to-presence model. Support for both models would indicate a
bidirectional relationship. Thus, the results of the present study can
help us consider the directionality of the relation between search for
meaning and presence of meaning.
204
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The first aim of this study was to identify the unique well-being,
cognitive, and personality correlates of the search for meaning. The
second aim was to test conceptual models of the relation between the
search for meaning and its presence.
Of particular importance to the first aim is clarifying the distinctions between search for meaning and presence of meaning. Correlations between search and other variables often mirror correlations
between presence and those variables. For example, Steger and colleagues (2006) reported that search correlated .36 with depression,
and presence correlated .48, implying that search and presence are
opposites. There were also examples of convergent patterns (e.g.,
correlations with intrinsic religiosity of .11 and .30 for search and
presence, respectively) and independent patterns (e.g., correlations
with the emotion Love of
.04 and .40 for search and presence,
respectively). Therefore, we categorized search and presence correlations with other variables using the following criteria: mirroring
(coefficients of |.10| or greater with opposite valence for both), independent (coefficient of |.10| or greater for one, less than |.10| for
other, and a significant difference in magnitude), convergent (coefficients of |.10| or greater with same valence for both), none (neither
coefficient significant). Such comparisons reflect the degree to which
search is distinct from presence.
Finally, we supplemented correlational analyses with partial
correlations, which quantify the variance accounted for by the search
for meaning that is unique from the relative presence of meaning.
This procedure focuses on the heart of the search for meaning, which
expresses the deep-seated human desire to understand, integrate, and
synthesize experience.
STUDY 1
In this first study, we examined how the search for meaning and the
presence of meaning differentially correlated with a broad measure
of psychological well-being. According to previous findings, we expected that the search for meaning would be inversely related to wellbeing. To examine support for the presence-to-search conceptual
model, we assessed whether psychological well-being moderated
the relation between the presence of meaning and the search for
meaning.
205
Search for Meaning in Life
Method
Participants
Participants (N 5 122; 70% female, 84% Caucasian, all others o5%;
M age 5 19.8, SD 5 3.4) were solicited from undergraduate psychology
courses at a large, Midwestern university.
Procedure
Participants completed measures in large classroom settings. The meaning measure preceded the well-being measure, with measures of common
life roles interspersed.
Measures
Meaning in life. The Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al.,
2006) was used to assess the search for meaning and the presence of
meaning. Five items comprising the search subscale (MLQ-S; e.g., ‘‘I am
looking for something that makes my life feel meaningful,’’ ‘‘I am seeking
a purpose or mission for my life’’; a 5 .87) and five items comprising the
presence subscale (MLQ-P; e.g., ‘‘I understand my life’s meaning’’, ‘‘My
life has no clear purpose’’; a 5 .90) were rated from 1 (Absolutely Untrue)
to 7 (Absolutely True). Research has demonstrated that MLQ scores are
reliable and stable and has supported the convergent and discriminant
validity of the MLQ (see Steger et al., 2006).
Psychological well-being. The Psychological Well-Being scale (PWB;
Ryff, 1989) was used to assess overall well-being. The PWB consists of
six 9-item subscales (alphas ranged from .74 to .85). Items (e.g., ‘‘When I
look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned
out’’ [Self-Acceptance],‘‘I am quite good at managing the many responsibilities of my daily life’’ [Environmental Mastery], ‘‘Most people see me
as loving and affectionate’’ [Positive Relations with Others], ‘‘I have the
sense that I have developed a lot as a person over the years’’ [Personal
Growth], ‘‘I am an active person in carrying out the plans I set for myself’’
[Purpose in Life], ‘‘My decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing’’ [Autonomy]) were rated from 1 (Strongly Disagree)
to 6 (Strongly Agree).
Results
MLQ-S scores (M 5 23.5, SD 5 6.4) and MLQ-P (M 5 24.1,
SD 5 6.2) scores were not significantly correlated (r 5 .16,
206
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
p4.10). Searching for meaning demonstrated medium-sized inverse
relations with environmental mastery, r 5 .23, relatedness, r 5 .28,
and self-acceptance, r 5 .36 (Table 1). These relations generally were
significant even when MLQ-P scores were partialled out.
Correlations of search and presence with environmental mastery,
relatedness, and self-acceptance fit a mirroring pattern; correlations
with personal growth and purpose in life fit an independent pattern
(Table 1).
Testing the Presence-to-Search Model
Though MLQ-P and MLQ-S were not significantly correlated, they
were inversely correlated, supporting the presence-to-search conceptual model. To test whether this relation was stronger among people
reporting low levels of psychological strengths, we used a moderator
analytic approach (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We regressed MLQ-S
scores onto standardized MLQ-P scores and standardized scores for
PWB subscales (excluding Purpose in Life) in the first step, followed
by their product in the second step. We then used simple slopes
Table 1
Relations With Well-Being, Study 1
Zero-Order
Correlation
with MLQSearch
Scale
Psychological well-being
Purpose in lifeb
Environmental
masteryb
Relatednessb
Personal growthb
Autonomy
Self-acceptanceb
Zero-Order
Correlation
with MLQPresence
Correlation
Pattern
Partial
Correlation
with MLQSearcha
.09
.23n
.53nnn
.39nnn
I
M
.00
.18n
.28nnn
.05
.09
.36nnn
.39nnn
.29nnn
.08
.54nnn
M
I
.24nn
.00
.09
.32nnn
M
Notes: N 5 122. po.05. po.01. po.001. Coefficients in boldface are significant
at corrected alpha of .008 (.05/6). I 5 Independent pattern; M 5 Mirroring pattern.
a
MLQ-Presence scores were partialled out.
b
Magnitude of zero-order correlations with MLQ-Search and MLQ-Presence differ
significantly (po.05).
n
nn
nnn
207
Low Relatedness
High Relatedness
Low Presence
Search for Meaning
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
High Presence
Panel 1
Low Rumination
High Rumination
Low Presence
High Presence
Panel 3
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Low Autonomy
High Autonomy
Low Presence
Panel 2
Search for Meaning
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Search for Meaning
Search for Meaning
Search for Meaning in Life
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
High Presence
Low BAS
High BAS
Low Presence
High Presence
Panel 4
Figure 1
Interaction of the presence of meaning and psychological strengths
and vulnerabilities to predict the search for meaning in life.
analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) to examine the nature of moderation
for significant and marginally significant interaction terms. The interaction term was significant for relatedness (Adjusted R2 5 .13,
DR2 5 .03, DF 5 4.27, b 5 .16, po.05) and autonomy (Adjusted
R2 5 .13, DR2 5 .03, DF 5 4.27, b 5 .16, po.05). The inverse relation between presence of meaning and search for meaning was significantly stronger among people reporting more relatedness (11
SD), b 5 .23, po.05, than among those reporting less relatedness
( 1 SD), b 5 .14, po.10, and stronger among those reporting less
autonomy, b 5 .34, po.05, than among those reporting more autonomy, b 5 .02, p4.10 (Figure 1, Panels 1 and 2). There was no
significant moderation for environmental mastery (Adjusted
R2 5 .04, DR2 5 .00, DF 5 .46, b 5 .06, p4.10), personal growth
(Adjusted R2 5 .00, DR2 5 .00, DF 5 .08, b 5 .03, p4.10), or selfacceptance (Adjusted R2 5 .11, DR2 5 .00, DF 5 .08, b 5 .02, p4.10).
208
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
Discussion
People searching for meaning feel little control over their environment and feel dissatisfied with themselves and their relationships.
These findings loosely parallel theory suggesting that people feel
greater presence of meaning when they understand themselves (e.g.,
self-acceptance), the world around them (e.g., environmental mastery), and their fit within the world (e.g., positive relationships;
Steger, in press). Conversely, people searching for meaning might be
expected to report less autonomy, personal growth, and purpose.
According to the present findings, people searching for meaning
seem no more or less likely to hold firmly to their beliefs or to be
influenced by others. In terms of personal growth, some people might
feel compelled to search for meaning because they are frustrated in
their personal growth; others might consider the search for meaning
to be an important part of their personal growth. Ryff’s (1989) purpose in life scale focuses heavily on planfulness and anticipation of
the future, and it appears that people searching for meaning are no
more or less likely to plan for and anticipate their future. Although it
is not the focus here, future qualitative research may clarify how
people view these factors in relation to their search for meaning.
Moderator analyses sustained the possibility that an absence of
meaning may lead people to search for it. However, the pattern
of slopes differed between autonomy and relatedness. The findings
regarding autonomy fit the anticipated pattern; people lacking the
psychological strength of autonomy appeared more likely to search
for meaning when they experienced less meaning. In contrast, findings regarding relatedness suggest that people lacking the psychological strength of positive relationships appeared less likely to
search for meaning when they experienced less meaning. These
divergent findings suggest that because (a) positive relationships
involve resources external to the self and (b) autonomy is an internal
strength autonomy may be more relevant to experiencing and
seeking meaning.
STUDY 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to examine cognitive factors that may
explain why people search for meaning. Based on theoretical accounts, we expected that search for meaning would be related
209
Search for Meaning in Life
both to inquisitive cognitive styles, such as low dogmatism, and
to cognitive styles associated with unhappiness, such as rumination.
We further tested the presence-to-search conceptual model by
looking at the interaction of presence of meaning with a psychological vulnerability—rumination—in relation to search for meaning.
We predicted that the relation between MLQ-P and MLQ-S scores
would be stronger among those reporting more rumination.
Method
Participants
Participants (N 5 149; 66% female, 74% Caucasian, 9% AsianAmerican, 8% Asian, all others o5%; M age 5 19.5, SD 5 2.2) were
solicited from undergraduate psychology courses at a large, Midwestern
university.
Procedures
Participants completed measures in large classroom settings. The
measures appeared in the order they are listed below, with spirituality
measures interspersed.
Measures
Curiosity. The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Kashdan
et al., 2004) was used to assess participant levels of curiosity. The CEI
scale consists of seven items (a 5 .76; e.g., ‘‘Everywhere I go, I am out
looking for new things or experiences’’) which were rated from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Dogmatism. The Dogmatism Scale (DOG; Altemeyer, 2002) was used to
assess levels of dogmatic beliefs. The DOG scale consists of 20 items
(a 5 .89; ‘‘The things I believe in are so completely true, I could never
doubt them,’’ ‘‘No one knows all the essential truths about the central
issues in life’’ [reversed]) which were rated from 1 (Very Strongly
Disagree) to 9 (Very Strongly Agree).
Meaning in life. The MLQ-S (a 5 .87) and MLQ-P (a 5 .87) subscales
were used again.
Need for cognition. The Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo & Petty,
1982) was used to assess interest in and enjoyment derived from thinking.
210
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
The scale consists of 34 items (a 5 .90; e.g., ‘‘I am not satisfied unless I am
thinking,’’ ‘‘I take pride in the products of my reasoning’’) which were rated
from 4 (Very Strong Disagreement) to 14 (Very Strong Agreement).
Ruminative Styles Questionnaire. The Rumination Styles Questionnaire
(RSQ; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1997) was used to assess an individual’s
tendency to repetitively focus on negative and distressing feelings.
The 10 RSQ items comprise two 5-item subscales, Brooding (a 5 .76;
e.g., ‘‘think ‘What am I doing to deserve this?’ ’’) and Reflection (a 5 .75;
e.g., ‘‘write down what you are thinking and analyze it’’) subscales, as
well as a total RSQ score (a 5 .80). Items are rated from 1 (Never) to 4
(Always).
Right-wing authoritarianism. The Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale
(RWA; Altemeyer, 1988) was used to assess individual differences concerning conventionalism, aggression, and submission. The scale consists
of 30 items (a 5 .91; e.g., ‘‘Obedience and respect for authority are the
most important virtues children should learn,’’ ‘‘It is important to protect
fully the rights of radicals and deviants’’ [reversed]), which were rated
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 9 (Strongly Agree).
Time perspective. The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI;
Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) was used to assess how individuals orient to
time. The 56 items comprise five subscales (as ranged from .70 to .81).
Items (e.g., ‘‘I’ve made mistakes in the past that I wish I could undo’’
[Past Negative], ‘‘I get nostalgic about my childhood’’ [Past Positive],
‘‘I complete projects on time by making steady progress’’ [Future],
‘‘Since whatever will be will be, it doesn’t really matter what I do’’
[Present-Fatalistic], ‘‘I take risks to put excitement in my life’’ [Present
Hedonistic]) were rated from 1 (Very Uncharacteristic) to 5 (Very
Characteristic).
Results
MLQ-S scores (M 5 24.7, SD 5 6.0) and MLQ-P (M 5 25.0,
SD 5 5.6) scores were inversely correlated (r 5 .20, po.05). The
search for meaning was related to particular cognitive styles (see
Table 2). Searchers appeared less dogmatic, r 5 .21, and somewhat more curious, r 5 .17; however, they were also more ruminative, r 5 .31, negatively oriented to their past, r 5 .33, and fatalistic
about their present, r 5 .26. None of these correlations is high
enough to suggest that the search for meaning is redundant with
211
Search for Meaning in Life
Table 2
Relations With Cognitive Style, Study 2
Scale
Need for cognition
Dogmatismb
Right-wing
authoritarianismb
Curiosity
Ruminationb
Ruminationbroodingb
Ruminationreflectionb
Time Perspective
Past positiveb
Past negativeb
Futureb
Present fatalisticb
Pres. hedonic
Zero-Order Zero-Order
Partial
Correlation Correlation
Correlation
With MLQ- With MLQ- Correlation With MLQSearch
Presence
Pattern
Searcha
.06
.21nn
.14
.26nnn
.43nnn
.35nnn
C
M
M
.10
.18nn
.14
.17n
.31nnn
.27nn
.22nn
.14
.20n
C
M
M
.21n
.31nnn
.27nn
.41nnn
.05
I
.27nnn
.10
.33nnn
.09
.26nnn
.11
.27nnn
.26nnn
.20n
.16
.07n
M
M
I
M
.05
.29nnn
.08
.21n
.06
Notes: N 5 149. npo.05. nnpo.01. nnnpo.001. Coefficients in boldface are significant
at corrected alpha of .0042 (.05/12). I 5 Independent pattern; M 5 Mirroring pattern; C 5 Convergent pattern.
a
MLQ-Presence scores were partialled out.
b
Magnitude of zero-order correlations with MLQ-Search and MLQ-Presence differ
significantly (po.05).
cognitive style variables, but they do suggest that meaning searchers
are actively discontent with both past and present and are openminded in seeking their own understanding of the world around
them. Partial correlations suggested that the portion of search variance that is distinct from meaning’s presence or absence is particularly related to negative feelings about the past.
Presence and search correlations with cognitive style fit the
mirroring pattern; correlations with need for cognition and curiosity fit the convergent pattern; and correlations with future time perspective and the rumination subscale-reflection fit the independent
pattern.
212
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
Testing a Presence-to-Search Model
As in Study 1, the correlation between MLQ-S and MLQ-P
supported a presence-to-search conceptual model. To further test
this possibility, we regressed MLQ-S scores onto standardized
MLQ-P scores and standardized RSQ scores in the first step, followed by their product in the second step. The interaction term was
significant (Adjusted R2 5 .13, DR2 5 .03, DF 5 4.27, b 5 .16,
po.05). As anticipated, simple slopes analysis indicated that the
inverse relation between presence of meaning and search for meaning was significantly stronger among people reporting more rumination, b 5 .36, po.005, than among people reporting less
rumination, b 5 .01, p4.10 (Figure 1, Panel 3).
Discussion
Consistent with theory (Maddi, 1970), the search for meaning was
associated with distinct cognitive styles, primarily tendencies toward
questioning the status quo and persistent, negative thinking about
the past and present. Searchers seem to consider new avenues toward
fulfillment in their lives, ruminate over disappointing past experiences, and feel helpless to influence their current circumstances. This
duality of experience suggests that the search for meaning might
differ among people who are positive and approach oriented and
those who are more negative and avoidance oriented.
It was somewhat surprising that people searching for meaning
did not endorse a future time perspective. Similar to Ryff’s (1989)
purpose scale, future time perspective items focus substantially on
planning; perhaps, people searching for meaning are not especially
likely to do so in an organized manner. Alternatively, people searching for meaning may be more focused on the past and present than
particularly concerned about the future.
Additional support was found for the presence-to-search
conceptual model. People who ruminate more demonstrated a
stronger relation between presence of meaning and search for meaning. This result matches Study 1’s finding for those low in autonomy.
STUDY 3
Studies 1 and 2 indicated that the search for meaning in life is
marked by lower psychological well-being and by both open-minded
Search for Meaning in Life
213
and ruminative thought patterns. These findings fit theories of both
healthy and unhealthy search for meaning. Study 3 examined more
thoroughly the personality characteristics associated with search and
tested the search-to-presence conceptual model. We administered
comprehensive measures from four different traditions: the Big Five
(Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Big Three (Tellegen, 1982), the
circumplex model of interests (Holland, 1985), and approach and
avoidance orientations (Carver & White, 1994). We hypothesized
that search for meaning in life would be related to some of these
basic personality dimensions, particularly those related to the
propensity toward exploration (e.g., Openness, Low Constraint,
Investigative or Artistic Interests, Approach Orientation) and
dissatisfaction with the current state of things (e.g., Neuroticism,
Harm Avoidance, Avoidance Orientation).
We also tested the search-to-presence conceptual model by
examining whether basic motive dispositions (i.e., Openness to Experience, Approach and Avoidance Orientation) moderated the relation
between search and presence. We hypothesized that among people
reporting more Openness there would be a positive relation between
search for meaning and presence of meaning. For people reporting less
Openness, we expected an inverse relation between search for meaning
and presence of meaning. We further hypothesized that among people
reporting more Approach Orientation (and less Avoidance Orientation) there would be a positive relation between search for meaning
and presence of meaning. For people reporting less Approach Orientation (and more Avoidance Orientation) there would be an inverse
relation between search for meaning and presence of meaning.
We conducted two more tests of the presence-to-search conceptual
model. Avoidance is a psychological vulnerability indicating greater
sensitivity and reactivity to punishment (Carver & White, 1994).
Approach is a psychological strength indicating greater sensitivity and
responsiveness to reward. Therefore, we hypothesized that there would
be a stronger relation between presence of meaning and search for
meaning among people reporting more Avoidance (and less Approach).
Participants
Participants (N 5 275; 53% female; 80% Caucasian, 13% Asian, all
others o5%; M age 5 19.7, SD 5 2.7) were recruited from undergraduate psychology courses at a large Midwestern university.
214
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
Procedure
Participants completed all measures in large classroom settings,
presented in the order in which they are listed below.
Measures
Big Five personality. The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was
used to assess the Big Five personality traits, as well as the six facets
for each higher-order trait. The five major personality dimensions
scores, as well as the 30 facet scores, have demonstrated good
reliability and validity (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Big Three personality. The Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982; Tellegen &Waller, in press) was used to
assess the Big Three dimensions of Positive Emotionality, Negative
Emotionality, and Constraint, as well as 11 subscales: Wellbeing,
Social Potency, Achievement, Social Closeness, Stress Reaction,
Alienation, Aggression, Control, Harm Avoidance, Traditionalism,
and Absorption (alphas from .81 to .91). The subscale scores
have demonstrated good reliability and additional validity (Patrick,
Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002).
RIASEC model of personality. The Strong Interest Inventory (SII;
Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, & Hammer, 1994) was used to assess the
six dimensions of Holland’s interests model of personality. Holland’s
model posits that people’s interests differ according to six personality types arranged in a circumplex: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic,
Social, Enterprising, and Conventional (RIASEC; alphas 4.90;
Harmon et al., 1994). The SII consists of 317 items, which are
rated either Like, Dislike, or Indifferent.
Approach and Avoidance Orientation. The Behavioral Inhibition
Scale (BIS; a 5 .86; e.g., ‘‘I worry about making mistakes’’) and the
Behavioral Activation Scale (BAS; a 5 .82; e.g., ‘‘It would excite me
to win a contest’’) were used to assess Avoidance and Approach
Orientation, which describe individual differences concerning sensitivity to reward and punishment (Carver & White, 1994). The BAS is
composed of three subscales: BAS-RR (reward-responsiveness),
BAS-DR (drive), and BAS-FS (fun-seeking). The scale consists of
215
Search for Meaning in Life
20 items, which were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly
Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree).
Meaning in life. The MLQ-S (a 5 .88) and MLQ-P (a 5 .85)
subscales were used again.
Results
MLQ-S scores (M 5 23.3, SD 5 6.3) and MLQ-P (M 5 23.8,
SD 5 5.7) scores were inversely correlated (r 5 .18, po.05).
People searching for meaning scored higher on Neuroticism, especially the Anxiety facet, Openness, both the Aesthetics and Ideas
facets, and the Tendermindedness facet of Agreeableness (Table 3).
Relations with Openness (rpartial 5 .28), the Ideas facet (rpartial 5 .28),
and Tendermindedness (rpartial 5 .21) existed independently of presence of meaning. Correlations of MLQ-S and MLQ-P fit a mirroring
pattern for Neuroticism, a convergent pattern for Openness, and an
independent pattern for Conscientiousness.
There were no significant relations with search for meaning and
the Big Three personality indicators (Table 4), although search was
significantly related to Absorption. This relation existed independently of presence of meaning (rpartial 5 .29). Several correlations
with MLQ-P were significant, and an independent pattern of correlations was most prevalent, with a mirroring pattern for Stress
Table 3
Relations With NEO-PI-R, Study 3
Scale/Facet Name
Neuroticismb
Anxietyb
Angry hostilityb
Depressionb
Self-consciousb
Impulsivenessb
Zero-Order Zero-Order
Partial
Correlation Correlation
Correlation
With MLQ- With MLQ- Correlation With MLQSearch
Presence
Pattern
Searcha
.18nnn
.20nnn
.01
.18nn
.18nn
.07
.35nnn
.18nn
.21nnn
.21nnn
.29nnn
.26nnn
M
M
I
M
M
I
.05
.17nn
.08
.11
.09
.03
(Continued )
216
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
Table 3. (Contd.)
Scale/Facet Name
Vulnerableb
Extraversionb
Warmthb
Gregarious
Assertivenessb
Activity
Excitementseeking
Positive
emotionsb
Opennessb
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Valuesb
Agreeableness
Trustb
Straight-forward
Altruismb
Compliance
Modesty
Tender-minded
Conscientiousnessb
Competenceb
Orderb
Dutifulb
Achievement strivingb
Self-disciplineb
Deliberateb
Zero-Order Zero-Order
Partial
Correlation Correlation
Correlation
With MLQ- With MLQ- Correlation With MLQSearch
Presence
Pattern
Searcha
.10
.00
.03
.00
.12
.02
.04
.26nnn
.25nnn
.22nnn
.15n
.14n
.15n
.05
M
I
I
I
M
C
.01
.09
.13n
.06
.07
.10
.04
.03
.31nnn
I
.06
.20nnn
.07
.16nn
.11
.11
.22nnn
.10
.10
.01
.03
.05
.04
.111
.17nn
.00
.04
.01
.02
.01
.02
.04
.02
.02
.04
.12
.03
.06
.15n
.21nnn
.16nn
.15n
.27nnn
.10
.00
.11
.34nnn
.25nnn
.27nnn
.28nnn
.33nnn
.21nnn
.16nn
I
.28nnn
.07
.18nn
.17nn
.13
.28nnn
.06
.20nn
.04
.11
.15n
.08
.10
.21nn
.13n
.04
.01
.02
.01
.02
.00
C
C
M
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Notes: N 5 275. npo.05. nnpo.01. nnnpo.001. Coefficients in boldface are significant
at corrected alpha of .0014 (.05/35). I 5 Independent pattern; M 5 Mirroring
pattern; C 5 Convergent pattern.
a
MLQ-Presence scores were partialled out.
b
Magnitude of zero-order correlations with MLQ-Search and MLQ-Presence differ
significantly (po.05).
.01
.01
.02
.11
.07
.07
.18nn
.10
.03
.08
.01
.14n
.01
.29nnn
Zero-Order Correlation
With MLQ-Search
.31nnn
.38nnn
.11
.20nnn
.28nnn
.26nnn
.25nnn
.24nnn
.20nn
.19nn
.12
.17nn
.18nn
.04
Zero-Order Correlation
With MLQ-Presence
M
I
I
C
I
I
M
M
I
I
I
I
Correlation
Pattern
.11
.09
.02
.18nn
.02
.03
.12
.04
.09
.02
.03
.10
.04
.29nnn
Partial Correlation
With MLQ-Searcha
Notes. N 5 275. npo.05, nnpo.01, nnnpo.001. Coefficients in boldface are significant at corrected alpha of .0036 (.05/14). I 5 Independent
pattern; M 5 Mirroring pattern; C 5 Convergent pattern.
a
MLQ-Presence scores were partialled out.
b
Magnitude of zero-order correlations with MLQ-Search and MLQ-Presence differ significantly (po.05).
c
Absorption does not load onto a higher-order factor.
Positive emotionalityb
Well-beingb
Social potency
Achievement
Social closenessb
Negative emotionalityb
Stress reactionb
Alienationb
Aggressionb
Constraintb
Control
Harmavoidanceb
Traditionalismb
Absorptionb,c
Scale
Table 4
Relations With MPQ, Study 3
218
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
Reaction, Alienation, and Harm Avoidance, and a convergence pattern for Achievement.
There were significant relations with search for meaning and Artistic (valuing imagination and creating original work) and Investigative (solving complex problems) personality types, both in terms of
zero-order and partial correlations (Table 5). This fits with our sense
that the search for meaning describes a struggle to create and understand. The fact that both personality types are known to prefer to
work with ideas echoes the correlation with Openness to ideas (Table
3). MLQ-S and MLQ-P demonstrated mixed patterns of correlations.
Search for meaning generally was unrelated to BIS and BAS dimensions (Table 5). The significant zero-order and partial correla-
Table 5
Relations With Interests and BIS/BAS, Study 3
Scale
Realistic
Investigativeb
Artisticb
Social
Enterprising
Conventional
BISb
BASb
BAS-reward
responsiveness
BAS-drive
BAS-fun
seeking
Zero-Order
Correlation
With MLQSearch
Zero-Order
Correlation
With MLQPresence
Partial
Correlation
Correlation With MLQPattern
Searcha
.14n
.20nnn
.19nnn
.10
.09
.05
.15n
.15n
.11
.01
.02
.00
.12n
.02
.07
.08
.08
.15n
C
I
I
C
.17nn
.03
.02
.01
C
I
C
C
.14n
.25nnn
.23nnn
.13
.06
.06
.13n
.15n
.16nn
.19nn
.03
Notes. N 5 275. npo.05. nnpo.01. nnnpo.001. Coefficients in boldface are significant
at corrected alpha of .0045 (.05/11). I 5 Independent pattern; M 5 Mirroring pattern; C 5 Convergent pattern.
a
MLQ-Presence scores were partialled out.
b
Magnitude of zero-order correlations with MLQ-Search and MLQ-Presence differ
significantly (po.05).
Search for Meaning in Life
219
tions with the BAS-DR suggests that those searching for meaning
are motivated to pursue things that are important to them. The pattern of correlations was mixed, but mostly notable for the low magnitude of relations for both MLQ-S and MLQ-P.
Testing a Presence-to-Search Model
As in Studies 1 and 2, the correlation between MLQ-S and MLQ-P
supported a presence-to-search conceptual model. We regressed
MLQ-S scores onto standardized MLQ-P scores and standardized
BIS and BAS scores in the first step, followed by their product in the
second step. The anticipated moderation by BIS was not significant
(Adjusted R2 5 .07, DR2 5 .00, DF 5 .39, b 5 .04, p4.10). The
anticipated moderation by BAS was significant (Adjusted R2 5 .12,
DR2 5 .02, DF 5 5.70, b 5 .14, po.05). As predicted by this model,
simple slopes analysis indicated that the inverse relation between
presence of meaning and search for meaning was significantly
stronger among people scoring low on the BAS, b 5 .41,
po.001, than among people scoring high on the BAS, b 5 .15,
po.10 (Figure 1, Panel 4).
Testing a Search-to-Presence Model
We next tested the moderating role of basic motive dispositions in
support of a search-to-presence model by regressing MLQ-P scores
onto standardized MLQ-S scores and standardized scores for each
personality variable in the first step, followed by their product in the
second step. As predicted, the interaction terms were significant for
Openness (Adjusted R2 5 .07, DR2 5 .02, DF 5 4.63, b 5 .13, po.05),
and BAS (Adjusted R2 5 .09, DR2 5 .02, DF 5 4.25, b 5 .12, po.05),
and trended toward significance for BIS (Adjusted R2 5 .07,
DR2 5 .01, DF 5 3.39, b 5 .11, po.10). Simple slopes analysis indicated that the inverse relation between presence of meaning and
search for meaning was significantly stronger among people reporting less Openness, b 5 .37, po.001, than among people reporting
more Openness, b 5 .13, p4.10 (Figure 2, panel 1).
The inverse relation between presence of meaning and search for
meaning also was significantly stronger among people scoring lower
on the BAS, b 5 .39, po.001, than among people scoring higher
on the BAS, b 5 .16, po.05 (Figure 2, Panel 2). Conversely, the
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Low Openness
High Openness
Low Search
Presence of Meaning
Presence of Meaning
220
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Low BAS
High BAS
High Search
Low Search
High Search
Panel 2
Presence of Meaning
Panel 1
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Low BIS
High BIS
Low Search
High Search
Panel 3
Figure 2
Interaction of the search for meaning and openness and approachavoid dimensions to predict the presence of meaning in life.
inverse relation between presence of meaning and search for meaning was significantly weaker among people scoring lower on the BIS,
b 5 .37, po.001, than among people scoring higher on the BIS,
b 5 .15, po.10 (Figure 2, panel 3). Overall, people searching for
meaning report less presence of meaning than people who are not
searching for meaning; however, this gap is narrowed among those
searching in an open or approach-oriented fashion and widened
among those searching in an avoidance-oriented fashion.
DISCUSSION
Study 3 was conducted to illuminate the personality profile of people
searching for meaning. Search was related most strongly to Openness (particularly to ideas), Tendermindedness, Absorption, Drive,
Search for Meaning in Life
221
and Artistic and Investigative interests. Both the prevailing independent pattern of correlations and numerous significant partial correlations added to previous work (i.e., Steger et al., 2006) identifying
the search for meaning as a unique variable.
This study further tested the viability of two conceptual models of
the relation between search for meaning and presence of meaning
with the presence-to-search model again receiving support. The correlation between presence and search was negative. The moderation
analyses indicated that less approach-oriented people reported a
stronger negative correlation between presence and search. The
search-to-presence model received mixed support. Evidence suggested that the relation between search for meaning and presence
of meaning differed among people reporting greater Openness and
Approach Orientation (and lesser Avoidance Orientation). We anticipated that more approach-oriented people would report a positive relation between search and presence. This prediction was not
supported. Rather, the evidence from this study suggests that search
for meaning is inversely related to presence of meaning, but less
so among people who are higher in Openness and more approach
oriented.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The search for meaning has long been thought to express a core
psychological need to comprehend one’s existence (e.g., Frankl,
1963; Maddi, 1970). However, there has been little previous
empirical scrutiny of the search for meaning. Thus, the present investigation sought to clarify its nature as a psychological trait and
evaluate whether it is unique from other variables. The present
findings indicate that the search for meaning is important to human
functioning, as it was related to less psychological well-being.
Moreover, correlations with an extensive array of cognitive and
personality measures strongly suggested that the search for meaning
in life is distinct from these variables.
The present study also attempted to clarify the relation between
search for meaning and its presence, in part by examining the patterns of correlations of search and presence with other variables.
Critically, little support existed for the contention that search for
meaning merely indicates absence of meaning (only 22/88 total correlation pairs matched the mirroring pattern). Our studies revealed
222
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
greater support for independence between the two dimensions of meaning in life (33/88), along with some support for their convergence (12/
88). We also used partial correlations to look at the heart of the search
for meaning, namely the deep-seated human desire to understand, integrate, and synthesize experience. In almost all cases, significant zeroorder correlations between search for meaning and other variables
remained significant with presence of meaning variance partialled out.
The present investigation thus has extended previous findings (e.g.,
Steger et al., 2006), building our understanding of this unique variable.
Our results suggest a somewhat dual nature underlying the search
for meaning. On the one hand, searchers report worse relationships
and less self-acceptance and seem more anxious, ruminative, and
unhappy about their past experiences and present circumstances.
On the other hand, searchers appear more curious and receptive
and tend to question, investigate, and become absorbed in their
experiences. In some ways this suggests an abiding uncertainty about
whether life has proceeded in a desirable manner, accompanied by
an investment in uncovering a better path. Perhaps it is this sense
of hanging between an unhappy past and an unknown future that
accounts for the lower well-being of people searching for meaning.
The Relation Between Experiencing and Seeking
Meaning in Life
A major part of this investigation concerned testing the viability of
conceptual models of the relation between the search for and the
presence of meaning. We acknowledge that correlational data cannot provide conclusive tests of any causal models. Nonetheless, correlational data provide information regarding the potential nature of
causal relations. Uncorrelated variables are probably not causally
linked, inverse correlations imply different causal relations than positive correlations, and moderated relations suggest important influences on causal relations. The presence-to-search model we
examined posited that decreases in presence of meaning would
lead to increases in search for meaning. Inverse correlations between
MLQ-P and MLQ-S were consistent with this idea. This model was
tested further by examining the interaction of presence of meaning
with psychological strengths and vulnerabilities. We hypothesized
that among people lacking other psychological strengths (or possessing vulnerabilities), the inverse relation between MLQ-P and
Search for Meaning in Life
223
MLQ-S would be stronger. This was borne out for autonomy and
rumination. Interestingly, people who reported greater relatedness
reported a stronger relation between MLQ-P and MLQ-S. We speculate that this deviation from our predictions might be rooted in a
distinction between external and internal strengths. The quality of
relationships is dependent on external resources to a greater degree
than the other strengths and vulnerabilities assessed in these studies.
Perhaps if people feel their psychological strengths are subject to
external influence, and hence are more uncertain, deficits in meaning
are felt more acutely. This speculation obviously needs to be investigated using other indicators of internal and external strengths and
vulnerabilities and methods that allow for better identification of
causality.
The search-to-presence model posited that increased searching for
meaning would lead to increased presence of meaning. We further
suggested that people reporting more Openness or Approach
Orientation (and less Avoidance Orientation) would report a positive relation between search and presence, whereas others would report an inverse relation. Correlational analyses did not support the
search-to-presence model as described, and, contrary to our expectations, Openness and the other variables appeared to moderate the
inverse relation between search and presence without suggesting
a positive relation. In terms of the search-to-presence model these
results would suggest that increases in searching normally lead to
decreases in presence of meaning with less of an effect for some
people (e.g., high openness). This is simply the flip side of what
would be expected from the presence-to-search model. Thus, across
our studies, the presence-to-search conceptual model received greater support, with little clear support for a bidirectional or searchto-presence model.
Future Directions
The findings presented here must be interpreted in light of several
limitations. As noted previously, this research used cross-sectional,
self-report methods. This severely curtails inferences about causal
relations between the search for meaning, well-being, cognitive style,
and personality. We certainly are not suggesting that the search for
meaning causes personality, so this limitation is not critical to
our improved understanding of search. However, longitudinal and
224
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
experimental work would shed considerable light on the developmental trajectory of search. Experimental methods might examine
whether people searching for meaning respond differently to threatening or challenging situations. For example, reminding people of
their mortality creates an acute existential threat (Pyszczynski,
Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004), and those searching
for meaning might suffer more from such threats.
Second, our samples consisted of undergraduate students. Scores
on the MLQ-S subscale are consistently above the midpoint for this
population, and it might be that young adults are particularly concerned with trying to understand their lives. Therefore, it would be
important to investigate how the search for meaning unfolds across
the life span, as well as whether it correlates with different variables
at earlier and later ages. One possibility is that the search for meaning is more prevalent during earlier developmental stages. Searching
might be a natural part of how adolescents and young adults develop
their identities and worldviews. Among older adults it might signal
substantial difficulty or failure to integrate one’s life into a coherent
experience. Along these lines, the relation between search for meaning and well-being appears positive among adolescents and increasingly negative in later life stages (Steger, Oishi, & Kashdan, 2007).
Factors related to presence of meaning, search for meaning, and
their interrelation, in age-diverse populations deserve considerable
attention.
The present studies help establish that the search for meaning in
life is not simply an offshoot of broader dimensions of personality.
The personality traits and cognitive style measures to which it was
related shared some common threads, particularly openness to ideas
and a tendency to ruminate over past experiences. However, there
were many potentially related variables that were not included in the
present study, such as people’s tolerance for uncertainty (e.g.,
Deschesne & Kruglanski, 2004).
As our understanding of the search for meaning improves, future
research should investigate how the construct might apply to other
realms of human functioning. For example, an abundant literature
exists demonstrating that searching for satisfying interpretations or
meanings for stressful life events is a common reaction to such events
( Janoff-Bulman & Yopyk, 2004). Some theoretical accounts have
described the potential interplay between such event-related meanings and broader meaning in life variables ( Janoff-Bulman &
225
Search for Meaning in Life
Yopyk, 2004; Park & Folkman, 1997; Thompson & Janigian, 1988).
However, we are unaware of any empirical work that has studied the
interplay between searching for event-related meaning and the
broader search for meaning in life. Are those who are dispositionally inclined toward searching for meaning in life more or less likely
to find positive meaning in stressful events? Do stressful life events
stimulate people to search for meaning in life? In one small study of
residents of southern Spain, people searching for meaning in life reported fewer post-traumatic stress symptoms 3 months after the
Madrid train bombings (Steger, Frazier, & Zacchanini, in press).
From this finding, we speculate that search for meaning is a stable
individual difference variable (cf. 1-year, test-retest correlation 5 .50;
Steger & Kashdan, in press), rather than a symptom of adverse life
events.
The search for meaning is a unique and underappreciated dimension of human personality, distinct from more broadband measures
of personality and cognitive style. The search for meaning is related
to negative perceptions of self and circumstances yet also marked by
a thoughtful openness to ideas about life, suggesting that it might
emerge in more or less healthy or unhealthy forms depending on who
is searching. It also appears that people might be stimulated to
search for meaning when their sense of life’s meaningfulness erodes.
Understanding the complexity of this relationship, as well as the
mechanisms by which the search for meaning affects and is affected
by a person’s functioning, awaits future research.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure
of dogmatism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 713–721.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
226
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and
personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 741–751.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation,
and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1988). Measuring meaning in life: An examination
of three scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 589–596.
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Deschesne, M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). Terror’s epistemic consequences:
Existential threats and the quest for certainty and closure. In J. Greenberg, S.
L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential
psychology (pp. 247–262). New York: Guilford.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.
Epstein, S. (1985). The implications of cognitive-experiential self theory for
research in social psychology and personality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 15, 283–310.
Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy.
New York: Washington Square Press.
Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Applications and technical guide for the Strong Interest Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model:
On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10, 88–110.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Social cognition: Learning about what matters in the social
world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 3–39.
Holland, J. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Toward a new psychology of
trauma. New York: Free Press.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Yopyk, D. J. (2004). Random outcomes and valued commitments: Existential dilemmas and the paradox of meaning. In J. Greenberg,
S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential
psychology (pp. 122–138). New York: Guilford.
Kashdan, T.B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration:
Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291–305.
King, L. A., Hicks, J. A., Krull, J. L., & Del Gaiso, A. K. (2006). Positive affect
and the experience of meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 179–196.
Klinger, E. (1998). The search for meaning in evolutionary perspective
and its clinical implications. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.),
Search for Meaning in Life
227
The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and
clinical application (pp. 27–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 137–186). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Maddi, S. R. (1998). Creating meaning through making decisions. In P. T. P.
Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research and clinical application (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Mascaro, N., & Rosen, D. H. (2005). Existential meaning’s role in the enhancement of hope and prevention of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality,
73, 985–1013.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., McBride, A., & Larson, J. (1997). Rumination and psychological distress among bereaved partners. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 855–862.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping.
Review of General Psychology, 30, 115–144.
Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of
a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 150–163.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why
do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 435–468.
Reker, G. T. (2000). Theoretical perspective, dimensions, and measurement of
existential meaning. In G. T. Reker & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Exploring
existential meaning: Optimizing human development across the life span
(pp 39–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reker, G. T. (2005). Meaning in life of young, middle-aged, and older adults:
Factorial validity, age, and gender invariance of the Personal Meaning Index
(PMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 71–85.
Reker, G. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1979). Factor structure, construct validity and
reliability of the Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) and Purpose in Life (PIL)
Tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 85–91.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning
of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
1069–1081.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of positive human health.
Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.
Steger, M. F. (in press) The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.),
Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: One link in the chain from
religion to well-being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 574–582.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life
Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80–93.
228
Steger, Kashdan, Sullivan, et al.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., & Zacchanini, J. L. (in press). Terrorism in two cultures:
Traumatization and existential protective factors following the September 11th
attacks and the Madrid train bombings. Journal of Trauma and Loss.
Steger, M. F., & Kashdan, T. B. (in press). Stability and specificity of meaning in
life and life satisfaction over one year. Journal of Happiness Studies.
Steger, M. F., Oishi, S., & Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Meaning in life across the life
span: Levels and correlates of meaning in life from adolescence to older adulthood. Unpublished manuscript.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (in press) Exploring personality through test
construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Thompson, S. C., & Janigian, A. S. (1988). Life schemes: A framework for understanding the search for meaning. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
7, 260–280.
Urry, H. L., Nitschke, J. B., Dolski, I., Jackson, D. C., Dalton, K. M., Mueller,
C. J., et al. (2004). Making a life worth living. Psychological Science, 15,
367–373.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid,
reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77, 1271–1288.